Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kotyark Industries Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Rajasthan on 8 July, 2019
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee
1
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.10 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31055/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-09-2018
in DBSAW No. 803/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jaipur)
KOTYARK INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.169068/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.169067/2018-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.169069/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS )
WITH
SLP(C) No. 31054/2018 (XV)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.169065/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T. and IA No.169066/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS)
Date : 08-07-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Adv.
Ms. Aisha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amarjeet Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Padmalakshmi Iyengar, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Damodar Solanki, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified On 5 April 2019, the following order was passed by this Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date: 2019.07.09 15:53:27 IST Reason: Court:-
“The Union of India, in the Ministry of Petroleum, has filed a counter affidavit 2 indicating that, on 29 June 2017, Clause 6A of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Order (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005 was amended to read as follows:
“The Central Government may permit the sale of Biodiesel (B-100) for blending with High Speed Diesel to all consumers, in accordance with the specific blending limits and the standards specified by Bureau of Indian Standards...” Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s), submits that the counter affidavit does not indicate the mechanics of the procedure to be followed by the Central Government for dealing with applications that may be filed by the prospective consumers in terms of the above notification.
That apart, it has been submitted that it is necessary that the Central Government should enunciate the parameters which it will follow for dealing with applications for the grant of permission in terms of the notification dated 29 June 2017.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, submits that the notification requires that the process of blending bio-diesel with high speed diesel has to be in accordance with blending limits and the standards specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards.
The above submission of Ms. Bhati is evidently based on the terms of the notification dated 29 June 2017. However, it would be appropriate if this Court is apprised of the precise modalities which will be adopted by the Central Government to deal with applications for the grant of permission. This should include the authority which will receive and take a decision on the application and such other requirements which must be fulfilled in order to enable the application to be processed. If this exercise has not been carried out by the Central Government, we direct that it be carried out within a period of two months from today so that the Court can be apprised of the 3 procedure to be followed by regulatory regime adopted by the Central Government. An affidavit shall be filed before the next date of hearing.
List the Special Leave Petitions on 8 July 2019.” In pursuance of the above order, the Union of India has filed an additional affidavit placing on record a copy of the guidelines dated 1 May 2019.
In view of the aforesaid guidelines, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the grievance in the petition does not survive and that the petitioner will move an appropriate application for permission.
No further directions are necessary in these proceedings.
The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER